Frank Cottrell Boyce found writing a sequel to Chitty Chitty Bang Bang required a leap of faith, but she was ready to fly once more I can remember everything about my first trip to the cinema. We went with Aunty Pat and my cousin Tricia. We took a Tupperware bucket full of pick’n’mix and cartons of Kia-Ora. The film was Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. Howls of anguish shook the building when the car drove off the edge of a cliff, followed by roars of frustration when the image froze mid-plummet and the word “Intermission” blazed across the screen. The innocent part of me was swamped with pity for that lovely Edwardian family plunging to its doom. The writer in me was already thinking: “OK. This had better be good.” And of course it was good. Like a duenna snapping open her fan – the car snapped open a pair of elegant wings and soared off into Adventure. To this day, whenever there’s an unexpected but perfect twist in a tale – or in life – I think of it as a Chitty Flies Off The Cliff moment. I had one of those moments a year or so ago when the Fleming family got in touch and asked if I would consider writing the sequel. It was as if they’d offered me the loan of a 1920s Paragon Panther – yes obviously I’d love to drive it but do I really want that responsibility? Wouldn’t it be better to leave it safely parked on the gravel in a motor museum? In the event, the decision was made for me. As soon as I mentioned the notion at the dinner table it became clear that there would be no discussion about this. I was doing it. Not that I needed persuading. One of the most important choices you make as a writer is who are you doing it for? I’ve always been clear about this in my head. Reading is usually seen as a solitary pleasure but I first learned to love books when people – teachers, parents, Bernard Cribbins on Jackanory – read them out to me. My ideal reader is a grown-up sharing the story with the children in their care. I’m always looking for ways to make the story a genuine pleasure to both ages. Writing a new Chitty Chitty Bang Bang book gave me the chance to harness a
Continue reading …Like-for-like sales in the 10 weeks to 19 March were up 1%, against growth of 3.6% in the previous quarter Supermarket giant Sainsbury’s revealed a bigger-than-expected slowdown in sales growth today as it highlighted the squeeze on consumer spending. The UK’s third biggest supermarket chain said it had seen “customers manage their spending carefully” with same-store sales growth of 1%, including VAT but excluding fuel, in the 10 weeks to 19 March. This compared with market expectations for a figure in the region of 2% and against growth of 3.6% in the previous quarter. But chief executive Justin King said the chain still outperformed the market in the fourth quarter of its financial year after attracting 21 million customers a week – up one million on last year. Sainsbury’s surpassed its “big four” rivals in Christmas trading, but competition pressures have intensified in recent months as Tesco and Asda have launched price-cutting initiatives. Shoppers’ finances are being hammered by soaring fuel and energy bills, as well as the January VAT rise and wider government austerity cuts. Growth rates are slowing across the supermarket sector, particularly on an underlying basis when VAT and rising food price inflation are taken into account. Sainsbury’s reported total sales growth excluding fuel and including VAT of 3.5%, a slowdown from 6% seen in the third quarter. The supermarket said it had seen significant growth in fuel sales – despite fuel price inflation of around 16% – as it offers competitive prices at the petrol pumps. To combat the tough consumer environment, King said the supermarket had introduced initiatives such as its meal planner tip cards, which help shoppers find up to five family meals for around £20. The group’s focus on non-food sales, which includes clothing, DVDs and electrical items, is still paying off, with the sector growing at three times the rate of food. The supermarket unveiled a partnership with celebrity fashion expert Gok Wan in the quarter to promote a range of womenswear. The chain continued to roll out its expansion strategy – opening 193,000 sq ft of space, comprising three new supermarkets, one extension and 21 convenience stores. King said: “We expect the consumer environment to remain tough, with our customers facing fuel price inflation, uncertain employment prospects and government spending cuts.” But the chief executive added that the firm was well-positioned for further growth in 2011/12. Recent supermarket share figures from Kantar Worldpanel have shown that discounters are enjoying a boost as hard-hit consumers look to cut their weekly outgoings. In the 12 weeks to 20 February, Kantar said Sainsbury’s was the fastest-growing of the top four with growth of 4.5%. Lidl and Aldi notched up impressive hikes of 13.6% and 13.4% respectively. J Sainsbury Supermarkets Retail industry Consumer spending Economics Petrol prices guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Libyan leader calls coalition ‘fascists’ during speech at Tripoli compound as Hillary Clinton claims aides are considering exile Muammar Gaddafi has made his first public appearance since air strikes on his forces began, pledging that he will not surrender and calling the international coalition against him a “bunch of fascists”. The speech came after Barack Obama warned the Libyan leader may try to hang on to power despite the military intervention. But the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, said she understood people close to Gaddafi were in touch with other countries asking for advice on exile options. Clashes continued on Tuesday morning along the front line between rebels and Gaddafi forces north of Ajdabiya. Those forces, which appeared to be well dug-in, fired barrages of mortar and tank shells at the opposition fighters, whose advance on the city appears to have stalled. Gaddafi appeared outside his Tripoli compound early on Wednesday morning to speak to supporters who have formed a human shield to protect him. “We will not surrender,” he said. “We will defeat them by any means … We are ready for the fight, whether it will be a short or a long one … We will be victorious in the end,” he said in comments carried live by state television. “This assault … is by a bunch of fascists who will end up in the dustbin of history,” he added, to the approving roar of the crowd. The early morning address was his first public appearance in a week, and there was nothing in it to suggest any lessening of his determination to sit out what he calls the “colonialist-crusader” attacks on Libya. Gaddafi seemed aware of growing rumours about his whereabouts after two strikes on his Bab al-Aziziya compound – with one opposition source reporting him at a hideout deep in the Sahara. “I am here, in my modest tent,” Gaddafi told them. “I am here.” Clinton told ABC News she understood people close to the Libyan leader were in touch with other states about the situation. “We’ve heard about other people close to him reaching out to people that they know around the world, Africa, the Middle East, Europe, North America, beyond, saying what do we do?” she said. “How do we get out of this? What happens next? “I’m not aware that he personally has reached out, but I do know that people allegedly on his behalf have been reaching out.” Speaking to CNN during his trip to South America Obama said he hoped the military intervention would help the Libyan opposition start organising for change. He said it might not be “military might” but a belief among the Libyan people that it is time for a change that ends with “ultimately sweeping Gaddafi out of power”. “I think – our hope is – that the first thing that can happen once we’ve cleared the space is that the rebels are able to start discussing how they organise themselves, how they articulate their aspirations for the Libyan people and create a legitimate government,” Obama said. He added that the immediate goal of the mission that began Saturday was to prevent Gaddafi’s military from conducting an onslaught on the rebel stronghold of Benghazi. “Because the international community rallied, his troops have now pulled back from Benghazi,” Obama said. While Washington and its coalition partners, including Nato allies and Arab states, are establishing a no-fly zone over Libya and attacking the Libyan leader’s forces, the US president warned that Gaddafi was unlikely to back down soon. “Gaddafi may try to hunker down and wait it out even in the face of the no-fly zone, even though his forces have been degraded,” Obama said. Yesterday, Britain, France and the US agreed that Nato should play an important role in enforcing the no-fly zone over Libya . Muammar Gaddafi United States France Europe Nato Hillary Clinton Ian Black Chris McGreal Adam Gabbatt Dominic Rushe guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …From public finances to petrol prices – a brief breakdown of what George Osborne is likely to pull out of his red box The economy The chancellor will announce the latest forecasts from the independent Office for Budget Responsibility, which are expected to downgrade projections for GDP; 2.1% growth was expected this year and 2.6% in 2012, but the City consensus is currently 1.8% for 2010 and 2.1% for next year. Petrol prices An above-inflation increase in petrol duty planned for April, which would have added 5p per litre, is expected to be cancelled. A “fuel stabiliser” may help to shield motorists against the impact of soaring oil prices caused by unrest in the Middle East. Public finances Osborne will offer his predictions for the size of his budget deficit over the next few years. Until yesterday, experts were expecting him to have up to £10bn to spare, but after grim news on February’s tax receipts, it looks as though the deficit will hit £141bn, instead of the £148bn he was expecting in November. That gives him little room for giveaways, especially as slower growth over the next two years is likely to make the deficit larger in future years. Tax reform The Office of Tax Simplification, commissioned by Osborne, has recommended abolishing the divide between income tax and national insurance. The chancellor is likely to say he’s considering this radical shakeup. Growth review Ministers have been hauled before Osborne, Vince Cable and Oliver Letwin to explain how their departments can boost growth – without spending money. The Treasury will publish a “growth review” alongside the budget, detailing the results: pro-enterprise measures on skills, planning and infrastructure to “rebalance” the economy away from unsustainable, debt-fuelled growth, towards a more sustainable model. Green investment bank The £1bn a year bank, which will channel cash to promising environmental firms that are unable to raise cash on the markets, was meant to be a flagship of the government’s environmental policies, but it is understood the Treasury has banned it from borrowing until 2015 at the earliest, which could limit its power to unleash a green revolution. Planning Councils will be told to presume housing development is needed, instead of making developers argue the case. Critics are warning this could lead to concreting-over of the green belt. Local authorities are also expected to be given the power to hold on to some of the business rates they raise, giving them an incentive to approve commercial developments. Housing The Treasury and housebuilders will be jointly funding a scheme to help hard-up homebuyers get a foothold in the market, by offering them shared equity in newbuild homes. Income tax threshold The coalition agreement included a promise to make progress each year towards the Liberal Democrats’ promise to lift everyone earning less than £10,000 out of paying tax, by raising the personal allowance. Expect a fresh increase. That means a handout for all basic rate taxpayers, but the Treasury is likely to repeat its strategy in last year’s budget of pulling down the higher rate tax threshold, to ensure that bigger earners do not benefit. Youth unemployment A £300m package to get young people into work or training, including the creation of 50,000 apprenticeships. Tax avoidance Reports suggest Osborne is banking on new tax avoidance measures to bring in £1bn a year. He may also tighten the rules on non-doms, who can avoid tax on their overseas earnings. Environmental measures Osborne agrees with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development that the government’s green taxes and incentives are too complex. With Europe’s emissions trading scheme, the climate change levy and renewables targets, it is hard for firms to calculate how much going green is going to cost. Expect streamlining. Booze If the government applies the duty escalator, raising the price of alcohol faster than inflation each year, it could add up to 7p to the cost of a pint of beer from April. Surprises? Every chancellor likes to pull a rabbit or two out of his budget red box, and we can rely on Osborne to hold back a few surprises to lighten the mood of austerity Britain. In 2005, Gordon Brown used his statement to announce funding for a statue of the Queen Mum. Could the chancellor be about to join in royal wedding mania? Budget 2011 Budget Economic policy Economics Tax and spending Petrol prices Motoring Public finance Tax Economic growth (GDP) Banking Housing Communities Unemployment Tax avoidance Corporate governance Alcohol guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Anyone who’s ever seen Jay Leno do one of his “Jaywalking” segments on NBC, locating average Americans and asking them factual questions on street corners, knows there are far too many Americans who know next to nothing about just about everything. They can’t name our first president, or don’t even know what the phrase “founding fathers” means. Ask them to name our current vice president and watch the brain waves flatline. Newsweek magazine recently announced its disgust after it offered the government’s official citizenship test (the one we require immigrants to pass before being naturalized) to 1,000 Americans. Thirty-eight percent of the sample failed. Newsweek worried in its headline: “The country's future is imperiled by our ignorance.” The magazine was careful enough to report that civic ignorance isn’t new. One study found the yearly shifts in civic knowledge since World War II have averaged out to “slightly under 1 percent.” But it worried that today’s interconnected world is “becoming more and more inhospitable to incurious know-nothings – like us.” It’s easy to get discouraged with the results. Sixty-five percent couldn't figure out that the Constitution was penned and adopted at the Constitutional Convention; 63 couldn’t identify how many justices were on the Supreme Court (nine); and 73 percent couldn’t identify that communism was what we opposed in the Cold War. Current national leaders aren’t so well known: 29 percent could not identify the current vice president (Joe Biden) and twice that percentage didn’t could identify the Speaker of the House (John Boehner). Let’s start with the positive angle here. It’s a terrific idea to examine whether native-born citizens can pass the citizenship test, and an astonishing embarrassment to learn how many can’t. Some public schools have used the citizenship test as a social-studies project in civic knowledge. A daring principal could make passage of the citizenship test a high-school graduation requirement. Promoting better civic and historical knowledge is an important cause.
Continue reading …Do people's politics color their views on the issues, even on life-and-death ones like war?
Continue reading …Click here to view this media If you were looking for an example of how right’s wingnutosphere manages to spin the most innocuous wisps of nothing into massive earth-shaking scandals of cosmic import, look no further than the outbreak of right-wing hives that erupted last week over these words from the estimable political-philosophy professor Brian Leiter : Meanwhile, the Republican criminals in Wisconsin forced through their attack on workers’ rights, leading to an uproar in Madison. … At some point these acts of brazen viciousness are going to lead to a renewed philosophical interest in the question of when acts of political violence are morally justified, an issue that has, oddly, not been widely addressed in political philosophy since Locke. Within a week’s time, these words had morphed into an example of left-wingers advocating violence in places like Wisconsin! , one of the favorite memes o’ the week at Fox. Megyn Kelly devoted an entire segment to wondering about the meaning of Leiter’s words: KELLY: Well, some on the left now suggesting that crackdowns on unions like we saw in Wisconsin will lead to renewed interest in whether violence would be morally justified. Of course, Kelly couldn’t manage to find a Faux Democrat who could actually read what Leiter wrote in context and laugh the whole discussion off the screen, since such a creature does not exist. This left Kelly free to then compare Leiter’s quip to a nutty rant from Louis Farrakhan. Fair ‘n’ balanced! The person who pretty much kicked off the whole charade last week was the Ole Perfesser, Glenn Reynolds, who wanked: This whole “new civility” business just isn’t working out as promised. On the other hand, it is working out pretty much as expected. . . . It seemed that everyone on the right, rather than read what Leiter’s words actually said, wanted to read what they thought his hidden meaning was — namely, that violence might become philosophically justified, a la Eugene Volkh : “My sense from Prof. Leiter’s post, though, is that he is hinting at more than just a philosophical inquiry”. Ann Althouse, as is her wont, made the leap and went there : How quickly the lefty mind turns toward violence! … Here, I’ll help you get your fancy-schmancy, high-tone philosophy seminar started: Acts of political violence are justified to get what you want. … Leiter is…inclined to approve of the impulse toward violence on the left and willing to mobilize the discipline of philosophy to generate rhetoric to support its political goals. It’s quite disgusting. Indeed, there was great handwringing on the right that Leiter was actually inciting violence. James Taranto cites reader John Benjamin: Frankly, Leiter borders on incitement. Not to see that comments such as his enhance the possibility of actual violence in the future is unacceptable. There is a profound degree of antipathy in political circles today and one would be denying reality if one expressed surprise at an act of political violence today. Shock and horror, yes, but surprise, no and it’s due precisely to the allowing of intellectual lunatics such as Leiter the light of day on campus or anywhere inside civilization. Even Taranto — who nonetheless read Leiter’s remarks as intimating an approval of violence — wouldn’t go quite that far. But nonetheless it became a fait accompli that Brian Leiter was urging the left to engage in violence. Which is not just patent nonsense but patently dishonest nonsense: The clear meaning of Leiter’s remarks is that this kind of political-miscreancy-without-accountability ultimately gets people to thinking about violence, and some of them concoct philosophical justifications for it — which really is almost unquestionably true, regardless of which side of the political aisle you sit upon. He says absolutely nothing to indicate approval or disapproval; he merely remarks on this point. For what it’s worth, we’re of the opinion that political violence of any kind regardless of source — whether privately inflicted or state supported — is only acceptable in the name of self-defense or humanitarian defense of others. And while we have been adamant in standing up to the rhetoric of eliminationist violence that has been endemic on the Right in recent years, we’re similarly adamant that threatening rhetoric has no place on the Left. And to the extent that it has bubbled up in Wisconsin in recent weeks, we are willing to stand with those who condemn the threats. But what’s most amazing about this episode is how finely tuned right-wing ears have become to even the vaguest intimation of advocacy of violence from the left, in part because of the anger bubbling up in Wisconsin. Amazing, because they have been utterly deaf when it comes to the endless deluge of vicious and hateful bile that’s come from the American right in recent years. John Benjamin’s fears that Brian Leiter is inciting violence are downright laughable when stacked up against, say, your run-of-the-mill Glenn “Progressives Are Cancer on Society” Beck rant , or Sean Hannity’s latest eliminationist joke. Their fears are especially ironic in the face of what they have produced. In contrast to the handful of relatively low-level threatening remarks we’ve seen out of Wisconsin, there has been a real flood of threats from the American Right directed at liberals and government officials, including some that have produced federal prosecutions for making threats. These threats have come from sovereign citizens, among others; they have involved numerous instances of political-campaign violence , as well as threats to judges, and ‘Patriot’ threats of violence against sitting governors . There have been explicit threats from Tea Partiers and death threats from anonymous racists . But those are just the threats, which really have been so numerous and have become so common that it’s really impossible to track them. This is not the case when it comes to incidents involving real or imminent violence producing arrests. Here’s what a map tracking them for the past two and half years looks like: Here’s the complete list. As you can see, since July 2008, we are up to 24 incidents and counting. Here’s my challenge to all those right-wing bloggers who are up in arms about the left’s supposed countenancing of the advocacy of violence: Come up with a comparable map. Really. I’d like to challenge the entire wingnutosphere to map out for us the incidents of actual left-wing violence targeting conservatives over the same time period. Threats don’t count: You have to demonstrate that someone inspired by left-wing ideology either engaged in a violent act or was arrested while preparing to engage in one. Because then you could demonstrate that you have solid grounds for fearing the potential advocacy of violence in left-wing rhetoric. Over here on the Left, we don’t have that problem. We have those grounds. My guess is, the best you’ll be able to come up with is Kenneth Gladney. Which is about as lame and hapless an example of “political violence” on recent record. Of course, we understand why you’re trying to make someone like Brian Leiter out to be an advocate for violence: It’s a way of diverting our attention from the very real concerns that exist about the results of right-wing violent rhetoric. Of course, in order to succeed, you have to completely whitewash away the very real and troubling history of right-wing extremist violence in America over the past 20 years. But that’s something you’ve all become very skilled at.
Continue reading …Click here to view this media If you were looking for an example of how right’s wingnutosphere manages to spin the most innocuous wisps of nothing into massive earth-shaking scandals of cosmic import, look no further than the outbreak of right-wing hives that erupted last week over these words from the estimable political-philosophy professor Brian Leiter : Meanwhile, the Republican criminals in Wisconsin forced through their attack on workers’ rights, leading to an uproar in Madison. … At some point these acts of brazen viciousness are going to lead to a renewed philosophical interest in the question of when acts of political violence are morally justified, an issue that has, oddly, not been widely addressed in political philosophy since Locke. Within a week’s time, these words had morphed into an example of left-wingers advocating violence in places like Wisconsin! , one of the favorite memes o’ the week at Fox. Megyn Kelly devoted an entire segment to wondering about the meaning of Leiter’s words: KELLY: Well, some on the left now suggesting that crackdowns on unions like we saw in Wisconsin will lead to renewed interest in whether violence would be morally justified. Of course, Kelly couldn’t manage to find a Faux Democrat who could actually read what Leiter wrote in context and laugh the whole discussion off the screen, since such a creature does not exist. This left Kelly free to then compare Leiter’s quip to a nutty rant from Louis Farrakhan. Fair ‘n’ balanced! The person who pretty much kicked off the whole charade last week was the Ole Perfesser, Glenn Reynolds, who wanked: This whole “new civility” business just isn’t working out as promised. On the other hand, it is working out pretty much as expected. . . . It seemed that everyone on the right, rather than read what Leiter’s words actually said, wanted to read what they thought his hidden meaning was — namely, that violence might become philosophically justified, a la Eugene Volkh : “My sense from Prof. Leiter’s post, though, is that he is hinting at more than just a philosophical inquiry”. Ann Althouse, as is her wont, made the leap and went there : How quickly the lefty mind turns toward violence! … Here, I’ll help you get your fancy-schmancy, high-tone philosophy seminar started: Acts of political violence are justified to get what you want. … Leiter is…inclined to approve of the impulse toward violence on the left and willing to mobilize the discipline of philosophy to generate rhetoric to support its political goals. It’s quite disgusting. Indeed, there was great handwringing on the right that Leiter was actually inciting violence. James Taranto cites reader John Benjamin: Frankly, Leiter borders on incitement. Not to see that comments such as his enhance the possibility of actual violence in the future is unacceptable. There is a profound degree of antipathy in political circles today and one would be denying reality if one expressed surprise at an act of political violence today. Shock and horror, yes, but surprise, no and it’s due precisely to the allowing of intellectual lunatics such as Leiter the light of day on campus or anywhere inside civilization. Even Taranto — who nonetheless read Leiter’s remarks as intimating an approval of violence — wouldn’t go quite that far. But nonetheless it became a fait accompli that Brian Leiter was urging the left to engage in violence. Which is not just patent nonsense but patently dishonest nonsense: The clear meaning of Leiter’s remarks is that this kind of political-miscreancy-without-accountability ultimately gets people to thinking about violence, and some of them concoct philosophical justifications for it — which really is almost unquestionably true, regardless of which side of the political aisle you sit upon. He says absolutely nothing to indicate approval or disapproval; he merely remarks on this point. For what it’s worth, we’re of the opinion that political violence of any kind regardless of source — whether privately inflicted or state supported — is only acceptable in the name of self-defense or humanitarian defense of others. And while we have been adamant in standing up to the rhetoric of eliminationist violence that has been endemic on the Right in recent years, we’re similarly adamant that threatening rhetoric has no place on the Left. And to the extent that it has bubbled up in Wisconsin in recent weeks, we are willing to stand with those who condemn the threats. But what’s most amazing about this episode is how finely tuned right-wing ears have become to even the vaguest intimation of advocacy of violence from the left, in part because of the anger bubbling up in Wisconsin. Amazing, because they have been utterly deaf when it comes to the endless deluge of vicious and hateful bile that’s come from the American right in recent years. John Benjamin’s fears that Brian Leiter is inciting violence are downright laughable when stacked up against, say, your run-of-the-mill Glenn “Progressives Are Cancer on Society” Beck rant , or Sean Hannity’s latest eliminationist joke. Their fears are especially ironic in the face of what they have produced. In contrast to the handful of relatively low-level threatening remarks we’ve seen out of Wisconsin, there has been a real flood of threats from the American Right directed at liberals and government officials, including some that have produced federal prosecutions for making threats. These threats have come from sovereign citizens, among others; they have involved numerous instances of political-campaign violence , as well as threats to judges, and ‘Patriot’ threats of violence against sitting governors . There have been explicit threats from Tea Partiers and death threats from anonymous racists . But those are just the threats, which really have been so numerous and have become so common that it’s really impossible to track them. This is not the case when it comes to incidents involving real or imminent violence producing arrests. Here’s what a map tracking them for the past two and half years looks like: Here’s the complete list. As you can see, since July 2008, we are up to 24 incidents and counting. Here’s my challenge to all those right-wing bloggers who are up in arms about the left’s supposed countenancing of the advocacy of violence: Come up with a comparable map. Really. I’d like to challenge the entire wingnutosphere to map out for us the incidents of actual left-wing violence targeting conservatives over the same time period. Threats don’t count: You have to demonstrate that someone inspired by left-wing ideology either engaged in a violent act or was arrested while preparing to engage in one. Because then you could demonstrate that you have solid grounds for fearing the potential advocacy of violence in left-wing rhetoric. Over here on the Left, we don’t have that problem. We have those grounds. My guess is, the best you’ll be able to come up with is Kenneth Gladney. Which is about as lame and hapless an example of “political violence” on recent record. Of course, we understand why you’re trying to make someone like Brian Leiter out to be an advocate for violence: It’s a way of diverting our attention from the very real concerns that exist about the results of right-wing violent rhetoric. Of course, in order to succeed, you have to completely whitewash away the very real and troubling history of right-wing extremist violence in America over the past 20 years. But that’s something you’ve all become very skilled at.
Continue reading …I've said for years it takes an amazing amount of rationalizations to be a liberal these days. On Tuesday's “Hardball,” Salon editor Joan Walsh demonstrated perfectly what I mean (video follows with transcript and commentary): CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Can’t they hear themselves in the echo chamber of B.S. they live in that the minute the guy did the opposite of what he said he did, he should have done, they would have attacked that. It’s just automatic criticism. Your thoughts, Joan. Before we get to Walsh's absurd response, what Matthews and his guests including the Huffington Post's Howard Fineman were discussing were comments some of the possible Republican presidential candidates have been making concerning Barack Obama and Libya that may not have been consistent with previous positions that they've made in the past. For his part, Matthews was, as typical, playing the conveniently ignorant shill who despite having worked for a politician before and in his current capacity as a professional commentator for decades has suddenly forgotten how politics work. As the “Hardball” host knows full well except when it's employed by politicians he despises, the modus operandi of a potential challenger to an incumbent is to criticize everything he or she says or does. You don't get anywhere by agreeing with your opponent. That Matthews is pleading ignorance to this is of course not at all surprising as after saying in November 2008 that it was his job to make Obama's presidency a success, he has made it clear in recent months that he will do everything within his power to get him reelected. With that, let's see what Walsh had to say: JOAN WALSH, SALON: Well, it’s so shallow, too. You know? And that is what you’re saying, Chris. It doesn’t matter. If something different happened, they would have a different principle. So they’re not, they’re not applying any kind of coherent principle of foreign policy or of domestic policy. They’re just looking for opportunities to cheap shot the President. The people who were criticizing Bush had a coherent, had coherent reasons to criticize him. It wasn’t like that. There was coherence to the point of view, where as here, I think you’re exactly right. They would just be trashing him whatever he did, and it feels that way. It feels cheap, it feels shallow. That warrants repeating: “The people who were criticizing Bush had a coherent, had coherent reasons to criticize him. It wasn’t like that. There was coherence to the point of view.” Really? I guess Walsh has forgotten the term “Bush Derangement Syndrome” which was originally coined by Charles Krauthammer in December 2003: Bush Derangement Syndrome: the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency — nay — the very existence of George W. Bush. Now, I cannot testify to Howard Dean's sanity before this campaign, but five terms as governor by a man with no visible tics and no history of involuntary confinement is pretty good evidence of a normal mental status. When he avers, however, that “the most interesting'' theory as to why the president is “suppressing'' the 9/11 report is that Bush knew about 9/11 in advance, it's time to check on thorazine supplies. When Rep. Cynthia McKinney first broached this idea before the 2002 primary election, it was considered so nutty it helped make her former Rep. McKinney. Today the Democratic presidential front-runner professes agnosticism as to whether the president of the United States was tipped off about 9/11 by the Saudis, and it goes unnoticed. The virus is spreading. The virus indeed spread. Let's recall that folks on the Left blamed Bush for among other things: A recession that began less than two months after he took office as a result of the explosion of the tech bubble the year before The attacks on 9/11 despite them taking years to plan The Enron scandal “Outing” Valerie Plame Rising oil and gas prices Hurricane Katrina including poorly maintained dikes Tornado response in Kansas The 2008 financial crisis despite the major culprits being the Financial Service Modernization Act of 1999 and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 both enacted before he was inaugurated Our current budget deficit despite the last budget he created with a Republican Congress in 2007 having produced a relatively tiny $160 billion shortfall and him being out of office for 26 months. Of course, this is only a short list. So pervasive was BDS that there's even a Wikipedia page devoted to it. Sadly, this malady continues today as Matthews himself in January blamed the Egypt riots on Bush. New York Times columnist Frank Rich blamed last year's BP oil spill on the former President as well. I guess this is what Walsh would consider “coherent.”
Continue reading …I've said for years it takes an amazing amount of rationalizations to be a liberal these days. On Tuesday's “Hardball,” Salon editor Joan Walsh demonstrated perfectly what I mean (video follows with transcript and commentary): CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Can’t they hear themselves in the echo chamber of B.S. they live in that the minute the guy did the opposite of what he said he did, he should have done, they would have attacked that. It’s just automatic criticism. Your thoughts, Joan. Before we get to Walsh's absurd response, what Matthews and his guests including the Huffington Post's Howard Fineman were discussing were comments some of the possible Republican presidential candidates have been making concerning Barack Obama and Libya that may not have been consistent with previous positions that they've made in the past. For his part, Matthews was, as typical, playing the conveniently ignorant shill who despite having worked for a politician before and in his current capacity as a professional commentator for decades has suddenly forgotten how politics work. As the “Hardball” host knows full well except when it's employed by politicians he despises, the modus operandi of a potential challenger to an incumbent is to criticize everything he or she says or does. You don't get anywhere by agreeing with your opponent. That Matthews is pleading ignorance to this is of course not at all surprising as after saying in November 2008 that it was his job to make Obama's presidency a success, he has made it clear in recent months that he will do everything within his power to get him reelected. With that, let's see what Walsh had to say: JOAN WALSH, SALON: Well, it’s so shallow, too. You know? And that is what you’re saying, Chris. It doesn’t matter. If something different happened, they would have a different principle. So they’re not, they’re not applying any kind of coherent principle of foreign policy or of domestic policy. They’re just looking for opportunities to cheap shot the President. The people who were criticizing Bush had a coherent, had coherent reasons to criticize him. It wasn’t like that. There was coherence to the point of view, where as here, I think you’re exactly right. They would just be trashing him whatever he did, and it feels that way. It feels cheap, it feels shallow. That warrants repeating: “The people who were criticizing Bush had a coherent, had coherent reasons to criticize him. It wasn’t like that. There was coherence to the point of view.” Really? I guess Walsh has forgotten the term “Bush Derangement Syndrome” which was originally coined by Charles Krauthammer in December 2003: Bush Derangement Syndrome: the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency — nay — the very existence of George W. Bush. Now, I cannot testify to Howard Dean's sanity before this campaign, but five terms as governor by a man with no visible tics and no history of involuntary confinement is pretty good evidence of a normal mental status. When he avers, however, that “the most interesting'' theory as to why the president is “suppressing'' the 9/11 report is that Bush knew about 9/11 in advance, it's time to check on thorazine supplies. When Rep. Cynthia McKinney first broached this idea before the 2002 primary election, it was considered so nutty it helped make her former Rep. McKinney. Today the Democratic presidential front-runner professes agnosticism as to whether the president of the United States was tipped off about 9/11 by the Saudis, and it goes unnoticed. The virus is spreading. The virus indeed spread. Let's recall that folks on the Left blamed Bush for among other things: A recession that began less than two months after he took office as a result of the explosion of the tech bubble the year before The attacks on 9/11 despite them taking years to plan The Enron scandal “Outing” Valerie Plame Rising oil and gas prices Hurricane Katrina including poorly maintained dikes Tornado response in Kansas The 2008 financial crisis despite the major culprits being the Financial Service Modernization Act of 1999 and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 both enacted before he was inaugurated Our current budget deficit despite the last budget he created with a Republican Congress in 2007 having produced a relatively tiny $160 billion shortfall and him being out of office for 26 months. Of course, this is only a short list. So pervasive was BDS that there's even a Wikipedia page devoted to it. Sadly, this malady continues today as Matthews himself in January blamed the Egypt riots on Bush. New York Times columnist Frank Rich blamed last year's BP oil spill on the former President as well. I guess this is what Walsh would consider “coherent.”
Continue reading …